Forbes columnist Steven Salzberg and author-investigator Joe Nickell will each be awarded the 2012 Robert P. Balles Prize in Critical Thinking, to be presented by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry at the CFI Summit in October.

Valuing Science with Differing Values: Let’s Broaden the Debate in the Skeptical Movement

In light of recent debates in our pages about certain political aspects of skepticism, we invited this commentary from a libertarian and skeptic.—Editor

What do you do when your heart says one thing and the data says another? When science conflicts with values, which wins the battle for your
soul? Which, for that matter, gets your vote?

Skeptics have a particular challenge with science and moral values, because for us science is a moral value. Critical thinking, honest
engagement with the evidence, understanding the world as it is, avoiding self-deception, intellectual integrity, these all have moral
stature in our lives. We are denied the simple consolations of “science is just a tool,” “ethical living is more important than empirical
facts,” and other outlets of the less critically minded.

These conflicts affect skeptics of all political stripes. Liberal skeptics, for example, may feel some tension between the science of
evolutionary psychology and gender differences. How society should respond to the scientific basis for gender difference is a policy
question, not a scientific one, but liberals might legitimately worry about how the evolutionary basis for gender differences could be
used to hamper their goal of a more egalitarian society.

In this magazine, this conflict has most recently manifested itself with conservative and libertarian skeptics on the issue of global
warming. (See, for example, Frazier [2013] and Mooney [2012].)
As a longtime libertarian, skeptic, and occasional contributor, I’ve felt this conflict personally. I accept the scientific consensus
that the Earth is warming and that human activity is a significant contributor to it, because, frankly, in light of the evidence, what
else can I do? But I understand the upset of readers who were bothered by the Mooney article, most of whom I assume are conservatives or
libertarians. We have, I think, two principal concerns.

First, accepting anthropogenic global warming means we will have to accept a larger role for government than we have traditionally been
comfortable with. Following Haidt’s (2012) terminology, libertarians and conservatives tend to value the moral dimension of liberty more than liberals, who tend to emphasize fairness and
proportionality. As the primary institution for establishing the latter at the expense of the former, we take a dim view of government,
believing it should be used only for certain narrowly defined functions required to secure the rights of its citizens.

Libertarians understand economics, externalities, and market failure perfectly well. However, we also understand that all institutions
are subject to failure, including government. In fact, we believe as skeptics that the evidence shows that even though politics and
governmental approach to problems do not work particularly well, they nonetheless expand far beyond their original intent, making
things worse and far more difficult to repair. We wish to break that cycle.

Thus we worry, I think with good cause, that any approaches to combat global warming will not be restricted to affecting global climate but
will be used to advance a political agenda that we oppose.

After all, what actions could not be justified in the name of saving the planet? Is it really so beyond the pale to think that global
efforts to address anthropogenic global warming are at risk to be hijacked by others with a much more expansive agenda? Is the profound emotional response we get from believing we are saving
humanity at risk for affecting our rational judgment?

As a skeptic, I would argue the risk is quite real. This doesn’t mean we should reject the science, any more than liberals who aspire to
gender equality should reject evolutionary psychology. It simply means that we will have to work for our respective political goals within
the context of what the science says to try and prevent “agenda overreach.”

This would be easier for conservative and libertarian skeptics to do, I think, if we felt more welcome in the skeptical community. When it
comes to politics, I like to think of libertarians as consistent skeptics. We want to know how everything actually works in practice, not
how it is merely supposed to work or assumed to work. This includes government.

This is in principle an empirical question. While it is one best suited to the social sciences and therefore not easily settled via
controlled experiments, it remains an appropriate one for skeptics to ask and explore.

And yet, while I and others have tried for years to introduce this perspective into the skeptical movement (see, for example, my 1997
article in SI), we have met extraordinary resistance, due to implicit articles of faith within the skeptical movement we would like to
respectfully challenge. In all these cases, we don’t dispute the science, but we think there is room for a broader debate on policy.

For example, is more government funding for science always a good thing? Equivalently, must cuts in government funding of science always be
opposed?

What are the rights of psychics and fortunetellers? Are we as skeptics at risk for violating them when we take certain policy positions?

As of this writing, CSI has a petition submitted to the FDA to regulate homeopathic medicine similar to other
drugs. Should skeptics be so sure this is a good idea?

These are just some policy questions on which libertarian and conservative skeptics have different views from their liberal colleagues.
Were our views proportionally represented in skeptical writings, on skeptical websites, and at skeptical conferences, I suspect the discussion on policy issues would be more civil, more dispassionate, and healthier for the skeptical movement as a whole.

Perhaps my perception is inaccurate. Perhaps libertarian and conservative skeptical voices would be welcomed if they spoke out more, wrote
more, and contributed more to the skeptic community. Or perhaps we make up a smaller fraction of the skeptical movement than my anecdotal
experience suggests.1

I do not know for sure. It would be interesting to find good data, or perhaps to conduct a rigorous poll that attempts to understand better
how skeptics describe themselves politically. Perhaps libertarian and conservative skeptics could be encouraged to take a more proactive
role in the skeptical movement, and we could see what happens. In that context, I’d respectfully ask my liberal colleagues to be a little
more receptive to the ideas of their non-liberal comrades in arms.

We are all bound to run into situations where science conflicts with our values. When that happens, the best we can do is accept the
science, state our values explicitly, and work to achieve the world we want. If you’re worried about how the science might be used, work to
make sure it’s not used that way. If you’re concerned about science being used to promote an agenda you oppose, show the evidence and state
why you oppose it.

Finally, all skeptics should realize that the political power of science, even when used in ways that threaten our own personal values, is
a sign of humanity’s progress. It used to be that societies made decisions impacting thousands of lives by casting lots, appealing
to revelation, killing animals and examining their entrails, killing humans to appease imaginary beings, and innumerable other appeals
to superstition and ignorance. While we continue to fight these same forces in the modern world, it would be both unduly pessimistic and
intellectually dishonest to deny the hard-won credibility that science now has.

That ought to be a source of satisfaction to us all.

Note

1. At the 2007 Amazing Meeting (TAM 5), one panelist asked libertarians in the audience to self-identify. By my estimate, between 20 and 25
percent of the conference attendees raised their hands.

Barry Fagin

Barry Fagin is professor of computer science at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. The views represented here are his alone. He is an ACLU National Civil Liberties Award Recipient and a syndicated newspaper columnist who writes frequently about skepticism and critical thinking. In 2012, he was named the Colorado Professor of the Year by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. Readers can contact Dr. Fagin at barry@faginfamily.net.

Content copyright CSI or the respective copyright holders. Do not redistribute without obtaining permission. Thanks to the ESO for the image of the Helix Nebula, also NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team for the image of NGC 3808B (ARP 87).